Business of the House

HC Deb 28 June 2001 vol 370 cc797-811 1.28 pm

The Parliamentary Secretary, Privy Council Office (Mr. Stephen Twigg)

I beg to move, That, at this day's sitting, the Speaker shall put the Questions necessary to dispose of proceedings on the Motions in the name of Mr. Robin Cook relating to Programming of Legislation and Deferred Divisions not later than half-past Six o'clock; and such Questions shall include the Questions on any amendments selected by the Speaker which may then be moved; and those Questions may be decided, though opposed, after the expiration of the time for opposed business.

It might be helpful if I briefly introduce the motion, which I anticipate will ensure the orderly conduct of business and is for the convenience of hon. Members and of the House. It is a straightforward, simple procedural motion that allows you, Mr. Speaker, to close today's proceedings in a timely fashion, while providing a full day's debate. There is nothing new or controversial about the motion and I hope that the House will now agree to it without lengthy discussion, so as to ensure the maximum time in which to debate the real issues of the day.

1.29pm

Mr. Dominic Grieve (Beaconsfield)

I am bound to say that, for a complete absence of explanation of the purpose of the business motion, the introduction that we have just heard takes some beating. I do not understand— I hope that the Minister will intervene and explain—why we have the business motion at all. I assume that without it the principal business of the House—the programming of Bills and deferred voting—could be debated until 7 o'clock when, according to your ruling, Mr. Speaker, votes would take place on those two matters there and then. Will the Minister please intervene—we have had no speech—to explain the need to introduce a programme motion to curtail the debate by 30 minutes? I am happy to give way to the Minister.

The situation becomes more astonishing. We have had no explanation of why we should go through the paraphernalia of debating the programming of business for the saving of half an hour. Apparently, that is what we are being asked to do.

I welcome the Parliamentary Secretary to the Dispatch Box, but failing even to try to explain succinctly what is before us and the purpose that the motion is intended to achieve is rather an odd way of starting. I repeat: am I right in saying that the purpose of the motion is to save 30 minutes of debating time this afternoon? If so, why?

Again, the silence is astonishing. The House is being treated with complete contempt. The Leader of the House knows well from past debates the anxiety that has been expressed by right hon. and hon. Members on both sides of the House about trying to achieve sensible programming of business. He knows also mat there are considerable anxieties about the way in which the system is exploited. Here we have a system being introduced in an irrational fashion, with absolutely no justification or explanation offered of why we should have to go through this process.

I hope that in the course of my short remarks and a short debate on the motion we might receive an answer from the Minister. I find it astonishing that none has so far been tendered. Does that not call into question the entire issue that we shall have to discuss on the substantive motions? If we are to be treated in this fashion over a simple business motion, Lord help us when it comes to the major issues that we must discuss, which involve trying to hold the Government to account and which ask us to make substantial concessions in terms of the normal practice of the House for the sake, apparently, of improving the way in which business is conducted.

If the Minister cannot explain this simple motion in a coherent fashion, how can we have any faith or trust in the explanations that will be given on the substantive motions?

1.32 pm

Mr. Douglas Hogg (Sleaford and North Hykeham)

I shall reinforce what my hon. Friend the Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Grieve) has said in opposing the motion. I have but a few points to make.

First, it is lamentable that the Minister who has charge of the motion should not have explained why he is introducing it. We are entitled to know. The fact that he has not told us, or even advanced an explanation, shows either a lack of mastery of his brief or a contempt for the House, which I find deplorable.

Mr. Desmond Swayne (New Forest, West)

I notice that a note has now arrived from the Box to assist the Minister. Perhaps we might get an answer now. The Minister appears to have received it.

Mr. Hogg

I am sure that the Minister will need notes and advice. He will also have to learn to treat the House with something approaching respect. If he wishes to be, as I understand he is, the deputy Leader of the House—

Mr. Eric Forth (Bromley and Chislehurst)

What?

Mr. Hogg

I suppose that the hon. Gentleman is the deputy Leader of the House. He will have to take more care with the House. The purpose of the Leader's office is to represent the interests of the entirety of the House. If the junior Minister in the Leader's office does not have the courtesy to tell us why he is laying a business motion before the House—

Mr. Swayne

The hon. Gentleman does not know.

Mr. Hogg

I suspect that he does not, and that suggests that he did not properly prepare himself before speaking from the Dispatch Box. That shows a contempt for the House that I find wholly lamentable.

Secondly, it is not good enough that a debate of this sort, which is of some importance, should come out of the time that is allocated for the substantive motions that are to be debated. It is not necessary, either, because the House's business could be ordered so that we took the substantive motions in a way that ensured that full time was preserved for debate on them. The Government have chosen not to do that; they have taken a course of action that could result in questions on the substantive motion being put without any debate at all. If the House chose to debate the business motion until 7 o'clock, questions on deferred voting and programming in the substantive motion could be put to the House without any discussion. I suspect that that is deliberate; the aim is to try to curtail debate, which again shows contempt for free speech.

There is a related point to do with voting. If we are minded to press for a Division on the business motion, which we are perfectly entitled to do, that too will come out of the time allocated for the substantive debate. If we are to do our job properly, press the Government on why we have a business motion and ask for a proper explanation—which, if we find it unsatisfactory, we shall vote against—the time for all of that comes out of the substantive motion. That is yet another example of a tyrannical Government trying to confine the House and prevent proper discussion, and it is a disgrace.

1.36 pm

Mr. Eric Forth (Bromley and Chislehurst)

This is a rather sad and sorry beginning to what will be a sad and sorry parliamentary day, as my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Mr. Hogg) reflected all too well.

The spectacle of a Minister coming to the House with no explanation at all for the motion on the Order Paper indicates all too readily the current relationship between the Government and the House of Commons, which is one of arrogance and total mastery. The Government's attitude is that the House is an irrelevance, inconvenience and nuisance to be swept aside; its role is to be minimised.

We shall shortly explore those matters further when we debate the main motion but, as my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham has already pointed out, the business motion illustrates only too well the difficulties that we now face. Ministers no longer regard it as their responsibility or duty to the House even to attempt to give any sort of explanation of their proposals. After all, technically at least, the motion is a proposal from the Government, to be considered and disposed of by the House. The sad fact is, after four years of the previous Parliament, in which the Government had a majority of 170, we now have to repeat the exercise. The Government believe that they have an absolute right to do what they wish in all circumstances and without even giving an explanation of their motives and what the consequences may be.

As Members, we are reduced to making a judgment on whether to curtail our remarks on this part of the day's business to preserve something of what is left. That is obviously the Government's intention; they are happy and think that they have been clever. In a sense, they are; the motion, together with the result of the motions that we have still to debate, is a relentless diminution of the opportunities available to Members, not just to question the Government and hold them to account, but to irritate them, delay them and cause them inconvenience. There is a new constitutional departure—the belief that the House of Commons exists for the convenience of Government Members.

That should be spelled out. At the start of what will no doubt be a distinguished and lengthy career, it would be helpful if the Minister set the stamp on it in a manner uncharacteristic of a Minister. Will he lay out for us with honesty and transparency the fact that the Government now regard the House of Commons as a necessary inconvenience, whose role they wish to diminish as far as possible so that the business can simply be got through as expeditiously as possible?

We hear from the babes on the Government Benches— and from other hon. Members — that they believe that being detained inconveniently in the House is unacceptable in this modern age. They believe that the legislative process should be reduced and diminished to something that is quick, easy and efficient. Hon. Members would then be able to leave the House as soon as possible to get on with I know not what.

Mr. Hogg

My right hon. Friend is right, and does not that make it all the more scandalous that the House is likely to rise at 7 o'clock tonight? There is no reason why even the babes should not stay here a bit longer.

Mr. Forth

It remains to be seen how much time the Divisions later today will add—and, in the hope that hon. Members will be able to plan their busy day, I can assure the House that there will be Divisions later. We will then be able to assess how many hon. Members—and of what gender—will be present to vote.

Mr. John Bercow (Buckingham)

I am as perturbed as my right hon. Friend by the Minister's failure to offer a rationale for the motion in his unnecessarily truncated speech. My right hon. Friend has a track record of penetrating the inner recesses of ministerial minds: does he believe that the motion is an example of knavery or of folly, or is it a hybrid of the two?

Mr. Forth

The House should show its traditional generosity to the Minister, who has not been in his post long. He has not been in the House long, but I do not hold that against him. His opening remarks were brief, but I am sure that we will get a comprehensive and penetrating analysis from him after this debate. That will re-establish our confidence in him, which was dented by the way in which he stuck to his notes in his short speech. I hope that I can persuade Conservative Members to join me in being generous towards the Minister.

For hon. Members who love the House and believe that it should still have a role, this is a sad and depressing day. I fear that today's debates will show that a large step has been taken towards the House's demise as a true instrument for holding the Government of the day to account. I should like to think that I was wrong, but I suspect that I will have been proved all too right by about 7.30 this evening.

1.43 pm

Mr. William Cash (Stone)

I share the view that the motion reveals the Government's contempt for the House, but it is equally true—and just as important—that the Government have contempt for the electorate. At the recent general election, voters sent hon. Members to the House to represent them. They deserve better.

I spoke in yesterday's debate on the constitution about parliamentary reform, and the motion reveals why that reform is needed. It is inconceivable that ordinary people could understand the verbiage and gobbledegook that today's Order Paper contains. I defy anyone to come up with a rational explanation for today's proceedings.

I have no sympathy for the Minister, who treated the House with contempt from the Dispatch Box. Equally, however, I severely censure those—in particular the Leader of the House—who are responsible for the disgraceful way in which today's debates are to proceed. The motions, if approved, will effectively cause debate on treaties and other important matters to be truncated and driven underground.

I want to comment briefly on the motion. It calls to mind Dunning's famous motion of 1780, which stated: The power of the Crown has increased, is increasing, and ought to be diminished. For the word "Crown", we should substitute "Executive"; for "Executive", we could substitute "Ministers of the Crown". That includes the Prime Minister.

The motion shows contempt for the House. More than that, it shows the contempt of the Prime Minister and the Leader of the House for the people who recently voted in the election. No wonder there was a low turnout and such cynicism. Any electors who were confronted with such ridiculous gobbledegook and verbiage would have every reason to question why they should vote. Ministers should take the responsibility and the blame for that.

I would have expected the Leader of the House to rise above what we are witnessing today.

Mr. Hogg

My hon. Friend makes a serious point about the verbiage in the motions. Does he agree that it would be a great improvement if the Order Paper always contained a summary of the consequences of the motions presented to the House?

Mr. Cash

As ever, I am delighted by my right hon. and learned Friend's remarks. Like most of my hon. Friends, he understands these matters. Labour Members apparently do not understand them. Bills that deal with treaties—one was published recently—and other important matters are accompanied by an explanatory memorandum, explaining in simple language what exactly is going on. Do not Members of Parliament have a right to such explanations of motions?

There is a serious problem. The confidence of Members in what is happening is at risk. Its diminution is the direct result of the sort of technical garbage that we are considering. It is therefore essential for the House to deal with the matter properly. I believe that some Labour Members agree with me in principle. I should be delighted if they addressed the matter, however moderately. I am looking at a specific Member, whom I know well. All power to the elbow of those who have the courage to stand up to their Government. The independence of Back Benchers in matters that relate to the power of the Executive is at risk. Hon. Members know that some Conservative Members occasionally had to inconvenience our Government.

We are considering a test case, which presents an opportunity for Members of good heart, good will and determination on behalf of Parliament to say from the beginning that we have had enough and that we will not allow such a method of proceeding to continue.

1.48 pm

Mr. Richard Shepherd (Aldridge-Brownhills)

I came to the House with the joyous intent of wishing the new Parliamentary Secretary all the best. His appointment under the Leader of the House is important. Indeed, the Leader of the House is one of the most effective parliamentary speakers and questioners, who has—or had—a fundamental regard for the purposes of the House. I shall now enter a caveat: it is disappointing that, with his first words in his new post, the Parliamentary Secretary moved a guillotine motion. The motion that we are discussing simply truncates business. It is followed by the important motions whose consideration it truncates, albeit by only half an hour, although it itself holds out the possibility of debate until any hour. I reflect on those matters because it is an unfortunate way for the Parliamentary Secretary's tenure to commence.

I think that it was Maine who said that justice was to be found in the interstices of procedure. I am conscious that in justice lies our liberty. The Leader of the House, when he took over these responsibilities on that glorious day, 8 June, must have closeted himself away to produce, between then and now, nearly seven pages of closely argued and reasoned motions. Reasoned? Well, argued, anyway, through the seven pages.

Is the House being given justice in being asked to examine something in only four and a half hours that strikes at its very function and purpose? These pages touch on the absolute control of the Executive over the House. That is why this little half-hour being taken out of those deliberations signals something: this is not now a matter for the House; it is a matter for the Executive.

Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody (Crewe and Nantwich)

I am a little bit baffled as to where this entire set of suggestions came from. Has it been debated on the Floor of the House before now, or in one of the Committees, perhaps giving us some of the answers to the questions that the hon. Gentleman is now asking?

Mr. Shepherd

There are no documents attached to this motion. It is purely an act of the Executive. It is being taken at the moment of the greatest vulnerability and weakness in the life of a Parliament, which is when it is a new Parliament. I look across the Chamber and I ask myself how many hon. Members have actually read the motions that are to follow, which are to be subjected to this guillotine. Two people have put their hands up. Any other offers? Now four people have put their hands up.

Mr. Chris Bryant (Rhondda)

Have you read them?

Mr. Shepherd

Yes, I have. I remember the great Michael Foot asking that question of "the ninnies on the other side" and they put their hands up. That is what we have reduced this Chamber to: not reason, not argument, but to the fact that we put our hands up. The reading of this document and the understanding of Standing Orders are important. When I first came into the House, I did not understand the constitution and the way in which we carry out our business. Our justice lies in these details. We are talking about the constitution not only of the Chamber but of this country.

If I cannot express myself, if I cannot argue even though I am mandated, and if it is solely the majority— or not even the majority, after all—that slaps in and says what will happen on occasions that follow this, I must ask the House to consider whether what is effectively a guillotine that will truncate our debate will allow us enough time to discuss in detail whether we shall have in future the opportunities that we have had in the past.

The traditions and freedoms of the House to represent our constituents touch on our liberties. The legislation that comes forth from our debates in this place is the criminal law of our land. I ask the most important section of any Parliament—the majority—to reflect. Great issues will come up in this Parliament, such as trial by jury and double jeopardy. Such legislation will require amendment. Does this motion, which gives the Government the ability to set—to the minute, if necessary— what we may debate, enable us to discuss those matters now? It will be taken for granted that those on the Opposition Benches will oppose everything, although that is not the truth of the matter. We must reflect what we are bringing upon ourselves if we accept this: a Minister will be able to dismiss every amendment. That is what it says here.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst)

Order. The hon. Gentleman is very obviously referring to the motions yet to come. We are at the moment debating the business motion.

Mr. Shepherd

Sir, I would only suggest that I am referring to the motions in respect of the question of whether there is sufficient time to discuss them. Their import is so great that, having identified the principles behind them, I am arguing that there is not. That is the purpose of my reference.

It is difficult to condense into a four and a half hour debate the passions, the histories and the traditions of this country as a free nation in which freedom of expression was central to the way in which we undertook our business. I suggest that new Members should have the opportunity to read the seven pages of the motions. After all, the former Foreign Secretary must have spent an enormous amount of time preparing them.

If I am fortunate enough to catch your eye later, Sir, or if I am fortunate enough to be able to speak to the amendment, I shall ask many questions and address the issues then, but, as the matter stands, let us be absolutely clear that the time available is inadequate; that this motion does not give us the opportunity to discuss the matter sufficiently; and that we ought to stand back and put our view to the Leader of the House. Remember, he holds a unique post in which he tries to hole the balance between the interests of the House and— [Interruption.] I thought I heard the hon. Member for East Lothian (Anne Picking) say, "Too long." It is not my fault that the motion is on the Order Paper. The hon. Lady should take that up with her Whips and her Government. If she has a view, she can make her own argument as to why the time we have taken is too long. This "off with their heads" attitude has reduced the House to impotence, so that it is of no interest to the wider public outside.

I am trying to contain a fury at what is to come, although my anger started during what was to have been a tribute and well-wish to the deputy Leader of the House. I hope that he will understand that balance in future. When the present Leader of the House was already a Member, John Biffen, a former Leader of the House, said, "We have to remember that today's Government is tomorrow's prospective Opposition." Protect our freedoms and our liberties, and do not introduce these measures.

1.57 pm

Mr. Mark Fisher (Stoke-on-Trent, Central)

I share some of the concerns expressed by the hon. Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Mr. Shepherd) about the central seriousness of what we are to debate this afternoon, in that it goes to the core of Executive control of the House and relations between the House and the Executive. The hon. Member for Stone (Mr. Cash) made the good point that we would all benefit from an explanatory memorandum on such motions. To go further, I would have welcomed an explanation from the Minister of the loss of half an hour.

Allowing for all that and for the central seriousness of a proposal which, unless the Leader of the House says otherwise, could in some respects represent almost instant guillotines on our proceedings, are we not being daft in wasting time on this debate? The hon. Member for Aldridge-Brownhills made the point that we have only one afternoon to discuss the matter, but we have already wasted half an hour—

Mr. Forth

Wasted?

Mr. Fisher

We have wasted half an hour during which we could have discussed the substantive motion. We are merely debating the time available. Let us get on, because the issues are so important and so central to the balance between the Executive and the legislature that we need all afternoon to discuss that matter, rather than considering whether we are spending time wisely.

Mr. Grieve

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way. Has he finished? I thought that I was intervening.

Mr. Deputy Speaker

The hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central (Mr. Fisher) did not make his intentions clear. I assumed that he was giving way.

Mr. Fisher

For the convenience of the House, I am happy to give way, although I was within syllables of concluding.

Mr. Deputy Speaker

The hon. Gentleman is ever gracious.

Mr. Grieve

I am extremely grateful to the hon. Gentleman. Does he not think it right that we should spend a little time discussing the matter, particularly in the absence of an explanation? It goes to the very root of the relevance of the Chamber and the way in which we operate. The explanation could easily have been provided and I am sure that the hon. Gentleman knows as well as do what it is. Why could we not be told?

Mr. Fisher

I have some sympathy with what the hon. Gentleman says, but are we not losing our perspective? The important issue is the substantive motion, but we have spent half an hour discussing time, which is a slight error of judgment.

2pm

Mr. Gerald Howarth (Aldershot)

I am delighted to follow the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central (Mr. Fisher). However, while I agree with many of his sentiments, I do not agree with his specific suggestion that the time spent on this motion is wasted, because it and the next motion are inextricably linked. This motion is a forerunner of what is to come: this motion encapsulates the Government's attitude to the House. That is why my right hon. and hon. Friends and I are challenging it.

I am also delighted to follow the last Conservative speaker, my hon. Friend the Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Mr. Shepherd), whose passionate defence of this House and this Parliament— its traditions and its liberties— is an inspiration to many of us and will, I hope, serve as a lesson to many who have just joined the House. One day they will be on the Opposition Benches, just as one day I started out on the Government Benches. If they treat lightly the way in which we enact legislation on behalf of our constituents, they will not only do their own constituents a disservice, but fail to live up to the responsibilities conferred on them by the privilege of membership of the House. They should therefore treat it with great seriousness.

I do not wish to speak for long, but I will say this. Like my hon. Friend, I had hoped to be able to welcome the Parliamentary Secretary to his new post in the usual way. As the hon. Gentleman will know from the four years that he has spent in the House, the House is very understanding of new Ministers, and of the trepidation with which most sensible new Ministers approach the Dispatch Box— the nervousness, the anticipation and all the rest. It is unfortunate that the hon. Gentleman started off so inauspiciously; I hope that he will take advantage of the House's indulgence to return to the Dispatch Box and provide the proper explanation that the motion unquestionably demands.

As I said earlier, I consider that a motion to truncate debate on such hugely important issues by half an hour demonstrates the Government's contemptuous attitude to the House. It is significant that the first business before us since the debate on the Gracious Speech should be a measure to truncate the powers of the House, and to confer yet more powers on the Executive—powers that they arrogated to themselves in the last Parliament without the consent of the Opposition. That was not agreed by the House: it was agreed by the Labour party, and by no one else.

The Government should bear it in mind that vengeance will return. If they treat the House and the Opposition with such contempt, they should not expect, when the tables are turned, to be treated with the courtesy with which they should be treating the Opposition now.

Mr. Bercow

Does my hon. Friend share the widespread view—it is certainly widespread on the Conservative Benches— that the intended circumscription of debate on business of the House motions would be unacceptable even if it had enjoyed cross-party agreement through the usual channels, which it patently has not? Does he also agree that we need not look into the crystal ball when we can read the book? We know from the way in which Programming Sub-Committees have been constituted that they entail domination by Government Whips. They are hand-picked; they are not accountable. It is here, in the House, that we have our only opportunity to express our views about the wisdom or unwisdom of what the Government propose.

Mr. Howarth

I agree with my hon. Friend; and if he casts his mind back to the last Parliament, he may recall that there were those of us who did not always agree that the usual channels were the best defence of our liberties here. We are a new Parliament, however, and we are starting afresh. We mean to ensure— I hope that this applies to Members on both sides of the House; I am certainly much encouraged by what was said by my former Staffordshire colleague, the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central (Mr. Fisher)— that there is cross-party determination, in the interests of good government, to prevent tzhe House from being treated with contempt by the Executive.

David Winnick (Walsall, North)

The time will certainly come when Conservative Members will be sitting on the Government Benches, although I trust that it will not be for a long time. Does the hon. Gentleman accept that those of us who support the Government on this measure do so not out of arrogance or to prevent proper scrutiny by the Opposition— although we also have a responsibility in that respect— but because we want a balance between proper scrutiny, the role of the House of Commons and our sitting hours, which should be normal, and should not go right through the night when that is totally unnecessary?

Mr. Howarth

I accept that the hon. Gentleman is assiduous in his examination of the Executive, but I do not recall many all-night debates in the last Parliament. When I came into the House in 1983, we had night after night of all-night sittings. I did not enjoy that, and it is not the best way to run this place. I hope that Labour Members will understand that one of the reasons why we did what we did in the last Parliament, led by my indefatigable and wonderful right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth), who was a great inspiration to us in our endeavours, was that we felt that there was no other way to get the message across that we did not believe that the balance that the hon. Gentleman wants to establish was being struck at the right point.

I want to conclude my remarks, because the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central (Mr. Fisher) was right that we should get on to the main business. I hope all hon. Members agree that it is a matter of central importance to the good governance of this country and to those who sent us here that we should have proper scrutiny of the Executive. However, the absence of people in the Press Gallery shows how little interest the media take in the serious issue of the government of this country. That should concern every Member of the House, from whatever party and regardless of the view they hold. The media's indifference to any discussion of these matters, and their concentration on the trivia of our private lives and issues of froth and no substance, is one of the reasons why the House is held in declining regard by our constituents, and why we need a proper debate on this issue. We do not need this programme motion, which, to the discredit of the new Leader of the House, is the first measure he has brought before us.

2.8 pm

Mr. Nicholas Winterton (Macclesfield)

I make a plea to the Leader of the House, who has a very important role. Will he please prevail on his junior Minister, before the debate is brought to an end, to provide a simple, straightforward, brief explanation of why this motion is necessary? As the right hon. Gentleman is aware, in the last Parliament I was a member of the Modernisation Committee, and also had the honour to chair the Select Committee on Procedure. I am concerned about the House's ability to monitor the Executive and to hold the Government of the day to account.

I listen with deep respect every time my hon. Friend the Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Mr. Shepherd) speaks, because, whether he is sitting on the Government Benches or on the Opposition Benches, his belief in upholding the integrity of the House is second to none.

I should like to respond to the intervention of the hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody), who is also a fine parliamentarian. The major part of the debate we are about to have will be based on the first report of the Select Committee on the Modernisation of the House of Commons, Session 2000–01, "Programming of Legislation", in whose production my hon. Friend the Member for Aldridge-Brownhills and I played a part.

We should get on to the main business, but the Government should at least have the courtesy to explain why this unfortunate motion is necessary.

2.9 pm

Mr. Stephen Twigg

With the leave of the House, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I thank the Opposition for the warmth of their welcome for my first appearance at the Dispatch Box. I particularly thank the hon. Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Grieve) and the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) for their kind words and the hon. Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Mr. Shepherd) at least for his intent. I served with the him and the hon. Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton) on the Modernisation Committee for two years during the previous Parliament and I am aware of their experience and of their commitment to the House and to ensuring the effectiveness of the Chamber and the House in general.

The answer to the question that has been raised by many hon. Members is that, without this business motion it would be possible for the debate on the programming motion to continue beyond 7 o'clock. Were that to happen, the subsequent motion on deferred Divisions could be talked out. There may be some hon. Members who would like that to happen, and they can vote against this motion, although I urge hon. Members to support it so that we can begin the debate.

Mrs. Dunwoody

I understand that it is always possible to talk out Government business. If it were not, there would be hardly any point in having Members of Parliament. However, if such a mishap were to occur, is there any reason why the matter should not reappear on the Order Paper, perhaps even next week?

Mr. Twigg

This is not Government business: it is a matter for the House. It is based on a Modernisation Committee report and Labour Members will have a free vote on the issues later.

Mr. Forth

Will the Minister remind us who chairs the Modernisation Committee?

Mr. Twigg

My right hon. Friend the Leader of the House chairs the Committee. However, if the right hon. Gentleman looks at the report, he will see that there was cross-party support.

Mrs. Angela Browning (Tiverton and Honiton)

It was not supported by the official opposition, whom I represented on that Committee.

Mr. Twigg

I accept that, but the former right hon. Member for East Devon, Sir Peter Emery, who was a highly respected Conservative Back Bencher, did support the report, and therefore, there was cross-Bench support. The hon. Lady is right to say that there was no Opposition Front-Bench support.

Mr. Gerald Howarth

If it is right that this is not Government business and is entirely a House of Commons matter, it does not matter if it runs beyond 7 o'clock. It is in the House's hands. It is no skin off the Government's nose. We could just bring it back on another day for the mutual convenience of all hon. Members.

Mr. Twigg

It is a matter for the House and, if a majority in the House share that opinion, it will be reflected in the vote on the business motion. I reject the charge that by tabling the business motion we are showing contempt for the House. We have allocated a full day for this discussion and there have been no Government statements. Previous similar subjects have been granted only half a day. My feeling is that the House wants to get on and discuss the substantive matters.

Question put:—

The House divided: Ayes 307, Noes 118.

Division No.5]	[2.13 pm
AYES
Adams, Mrs Irene (Paisley N)	Bryant, Chris
Ainger, Nick	Buck, Ms Karen
Allan, Richard	Burden, Richard
Allen, Graham	Burgon, Colin
Armstrong, Rt Hon Ms Hilary	Burnham, Andy
Atherton, Ms Candy	Cable, Dr Vincent
Atkins, Charlotte	Cairns, David
Austin, John	Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)
Bailey, Adrian	Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)
Baird, Vera	Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)
Barnes, Harry	Caplin, Ivor
Barron, Kevin	Caton, Martin
Battle, John	Cawsey, Ian
Bayley, Hugh	Challen, Colin
Beard, Nigel	Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)
Begg, Miss Anne	Clark, Dr Lynda
Beith, Rt Hon A J	(Edinburgh Pentlands)
Bell, Stuart	Clark, Paul (Gillingham)
Benn, Hilary	Clarke, Charles (Norwich S)
Bennett, Andrew	Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge)
Benton, Joe	Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)
Berry, Roger	Clwyd, Ann
Best, Harold	Coffey, Ms Ann
Betts, Clive	Coleman, Iain
Blackman, Liz	Colman, Tony
Blizzard, Bob	Connarty, Michael
Boateng, Rt Hon Paul	Cook, Rt Hon Robin (Livingston)
Borrow, David	Cooper, Yvette
Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)	Corston, Jean
Brake, Tom	Cotter, Brian
Breed, Colin	Cousins, Jim
Brinton, Mrs Helen	Cranston, Ross
Brooke, Annette	Cruddas, Jon
Brown, Rt Hon Nicholas	Cryer, John (Hornchurch)
(Newcastle E & Wallsend)	Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)
Browne, Desmond	Cunningham, Tony (Workington)

Curtis-Thomas, Mrs Claire	Jenkins, Brian
Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)	Johnson, Miss Melanie
David, Wayne	(Welwyn Hatfield)
Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)	Jones, Helen (Warrington N)
Dawson, Hilton	Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)
Dean, Mrs Janet	Jones, Kevan (N Durham)
Dhanda, Parmjit	Jones, Lynne (Selly Oak)
Dobbin, Jim	Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)
Dobson, Rt Hon Frank	Jowell, Rt Hon Tessa
	Joyce, Eric
Donohoe, Brian H	Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald
Doran, Frank	Keeble, Ms Sally
Doughty, Sue	Keen, Alan (Feltham amp; Heston)
Drew, David	Keen, Ann (Brentford amp; Isleworth)
Drown, Ms Julia	Kelly, Ruth
Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)	Kemp, Fraser
Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)	Kidney, David
Efford, Clive	Kilfoyle, Peter
Ellman, Mrs Louise	King, Andy (Rugby & Kenilworth)
Ennis, Jeff	King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Green)
Farrelly, Paul	Kirkwood, Archy
Fitzpatrick, Jim	Knight, Jim (S Dorset)
Fitzsimons, Mrs Lorna	Kumar, Dr Ashok
	Ladyman, Dr Stephen
Flint, Caroline	Lawrence, Mrs Jackie
Follett, Barbara	Laxton, Bob
Foster, Rt Hon Derek	Lepper, David
Foster, Don (Bath)	Leslie, Christopher
Foster, Michael (Worcester)	Levitt, Tom
Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)	Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)
	Liddell, Rt Hon Mrs Helen
Francis, Dr Hywel	Linton, Martin
Galloway, George	Lloyd, Tony
Gapes, Mike	Llwyd, Elfyn
Gerrard, Neil	Love, Andrew
Gibson, Dr Ian	Lucas, Ian
Gidley, Sandra	Luke, Iain
Gilroy, Linda	Lyons, John
Goggins, Paul	McAvoy, Thomas
Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)	McCabe, Stephen
Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)	McDonnell, John
Grogan, John	McFall, John
Hain, Peter	McGuire, Mrs Anne
	McIsaac, Shona
Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)	McKechin, Ann
Hanson, David	McKenna, Rosemary
Harman, Rt Hon Ms Harriet
	Mackinlay, Andrew
Harris, Tom (Glasgow Cathcart)	Mactaggart, Fiona
Havard, Dai	McWalter, Tony
Healey, John	McWilliam, John
Heath, David	Mahmood, Khalid
Henderson, Doug (Newcastle N)	Mahon, Mrs Alice
Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)	Mallaber, Judy
Hendrick, Mark	Mann, John
Heppell, John	Marris, Rob
Hesford, Stephen	Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)
	Marshall, David (Shettleston)
Heyes, David	Martlew, Eric
Hill, Keith	Milburn, Rt Hon Alan
Hinchliffe, David	Miller, Andrew
Holmes, Paul	Mitchell, Austin (Gt Grimsby)
Hood, Jimmy	Moffatt, Laura
Hoon, Rt Hon Geoffrey	Moran, Margaret
Hopkins, Kelvin	Morgan, Julie
Howarth, George (Knowsley N)	Mountford, Kali
Hoyle, Lindsay	Mullin, Chris
Hughes, Beverley (Stretford)	Munn, Ms Meg
Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)	Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)
Humble, Mrs Joan	Murphy, Rt Hon Paul (Torfaen)
Hurst, Alan	Naysmith, Dr Doug
	Norris, Dan
Iddon, Dr Brian	O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)
Illsley, Eric	O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)
Jackson, Glenda (Hampstead)	Olner, Bill
Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)	O'Neill, Martin
Jamieson, David	Osborne, Sandra (Ayr)

Owen, Albert	Stringer, Graham
Palmer, Dr Nick	Stuart, Ms Gisela
Perham, Linda	Stunell, Andrew
Picking, Anne	Sutcliffe, Gerry
Pickthall, Colin	Tami, Mark
Pike, Peter	Taylor, Rt Hon Ann (Dewsbury)
Plaskitt, James	Taylor, Ms Dari (Stockton S)
Pope, Greg	Taylor, David (NW Leics)
Pound, Stephen	Taylor, Matthew (Truro)
Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)	Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)
Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)	Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)
Prosser, Gwyn	Thomas, Simon (Ceredigion)
Purchase, Ken	Thurso, John
Purnell, James	Tipping, Paddy
Quinn, Lawrie	Todd, Mark
Rammell, Bill	Truswell, Paul
Rapson, Syd	Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)
Raynsford, Rt Hon Nick	Turner, Dr Desmond (Kemptown)
Robertson, Angus (Moray)	Turner, Neil (Wigan)
Robertson, John	Twigg, Derek (Halton)
(Glasgow Anniesland)	Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)
Rooney, Terry	Tyler, Paul
Ross, Ernie	Tynan, Bill
Ruddock, Joan	Walley, Ms Joan
Russell, Ms Christine (Chester)	Ward, Ms Claire
Ryan, Joan	Watson, Tom
Salter, Martin	Watts, David
Sarwar, Mohammad	White, Brian
Savidge, Malcolm	Whitehead, Dr Alan
Sedgemore, Brian	Wicks, Malcolm
Shaw, Jonathan	Williams, Rt Hon Alan
Sheerman, Barry	(Swansea W)
Shipley, Ms Debra	Williams, Mrs Betty (Conwy)
Simon, Siôn	Williams, Hywel (Caernarfon)
Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)	Willis, Phil
Skinner, Dennis	Winnick, David
Smith, Rt Hon Andrew (Oxford E)	Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)
Smith, Rt Hon Chris (Islington S)	Wishart, Pete
Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)	Wood, Mike
Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)	Woolas, Phil
Soley, Clive	Worthington, Tony
Southworth, Helen	Wright, David (Telford)
Squire, Rachel	Wright, Tony (Cannock)
Starkey, Dr Phyllis	Wyatt, Derek
Steinberg, Gerry	Younger-Ross, Richard
Stevenson, George
Stewart, Ian (Eccles)	Tellers for the Ayes:
Stinchcombe, Paul	Mr. Tony McNulty and Mr. Ian Pearson.
Stoate, Dr Howard

NOES
Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)	Collins, Tim
Ancram, Rt Hon Michael	Conway, Derek
Arbuthnot, Rt Hon James	Cormack, Sir Patrick
Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)	Cran, James
Bacon, Richard	Curry, Rt Hon David
Baldry, Tony	Djanogly, Jonathan
Barker, Greg	Dodds, Nigel
Baron, John	Duncan Smith, Iain
Bellingham, Henry	Duncan, Peter
Bercow, John	Evans, Nigel
Beresford, Sir Paul	Fabricant, Michael
Blunt, Crispin	Fallon, Michael
Boswell, Tim	Flight, Howard
Brady, Graham	Flook, Adrian
Brazier, Julian	Forth, Rt Hon Eric
Browning, Mrs Angela	Francois, Mark
Burnett, John	Gale, Roger
Burt, Alistair	Garnier, Edward
Butterfill, John	George, Andrew (St Ives)
Cameron, David	Gibb, Nick
Cash, William	Gillan, Mrs Cheryl
Chope, Christopher	Goodman, Paul
Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth	Grayling, Chris
(Rushcliffe)	Green, Damian (Ashford)
Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey	Grieve, Dominic

Hague, Rt Hon William	Prisk, Mark
Hawkins, Nick	Redwood, Rt Hon John
Hayes, John	Robertson, Hugh (Faversham)
Heald, Oliver	Robertson, Laurence (Tewk'b'ry)
Heathcoat-Amory, Rt Hon David	Roe, Mrs Marion
Hendry, Charles	Rosindell, Andrew
Hoban, Mark	Sayeed, Jonathan
Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas	Shephard, Rt Hon Mrs Gillian
Horam, John	Shepherd, Richard
Howard, Rt Hon Michael	Simmonds, Mark
Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)	Simpson, Keith (Mid-Norfolk)
Jack, Rt Hon Michael	Smith, Sir Robert (W Ab'd'ns)
Jenkin, Bernard	Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)
Kirkbride, Miss Julie	Spelman Mrs Caroline
Lait, Mrs Jacqui	Spink, Dr Robert
Lansley, Andrew	Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John
Leigh, Edward	Steen, Anthony
Lewis, Dr Julian (New Forest E)	Swayne, Desmond
Liddell-Grainger, Ian	Swire, Hugo
Lidington, David	Syms, Robert
Loughton, Tim	Taylor, Ian (Esher & Walton)
Luff, Peter	Taylor, John (Solihull)
McIntosh, Miss Anne	Taylor, Sir Teddy
Maclean, Rt Hon David	Tredinick, David
McLoughlin, Patrick	Turner, Andrew (Isle of Wight)
Maples, John	Watkinson, Angela
Mawhinney, Rt Hon Sir Brian	Whittingdale, John
Mercer, Patrick	Widdecombe, Rt Hon Miss Ann
Mitchell, Andrew (Sutton Coldfield)	Wiggin, Bill
Moss, Malcolm	Wilkinson, John
Murrison, Dr Andrew	Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)
O'Brien, Stephen (Eddisbury)	Winterton, Nicholas (Macclesfield)
Öpik, Lembit	Young, Rt Hon Sir George
Osborne, George (Tatton)
Page, Richard	Tellers for the Noes:
Paterson, Owen	Mr. John Randall and Mr. James Gray.
Portillo, Rt Hon Michael

Question accordingly agreed to.

Resolved, That, at this day's sitting, the Speaker shall put the Questions necessary to dispose of proceedings on the Motions in the name of Mr. Robin Cook relating to Programming of Legislation and Deferred Divisions not later than half-past Six o'clock; and such Questions shall include the Questions on any amendments selected by the Speaker which may then be moved; and those Questions may be decided, though opposed, after the expiration of the time for opposed business.